Permission to post images

[missyplay]

So how many of us here have permission to post the pics, vids and info that we use??

[LilyRox]

That's a really good question.

[Nikka]

maybe is to filter llinks and pics from people who supports piracy like LilyRox ^^^^^

[LilyRox]

maybe is to filter llinks and pics from people who supports piracy like LilyRox ^^^^^

I don't support piracy. I support tube sites that have uploaded legal video files that are for non commercial use. If they are hosting copyrighted video files that they don't have the rights to and don't take them down, you'll have to consult them.

[missyplay]

thanks for responding guys

[darkrose2000]

The photos that I post here in the forum is made by me. (I am photographer).
According to the law, I own the photos that I made by myself, as a creator of the images, so in this case I think yes, I have the right to post it.

If I want to use them for commercial use (for example to sell the photos), then I need a model release, that will confirm that I have the model approval to do it.

Regards,
K.

[nysprod]

So how many of us here have permission to post the pics, vids and info that we use??

Photos that are posted in the public domain (i.e. the internet) can be re-posted without permission for non-commercial use unless the owner of the photo specifically prohibits it.

[missyplay]

Photos that are posted in the public domain (i.e. the internet) can be re-posted without permission for non-commercial use unless the owner of the photo specifically prohibits it.

hmmmmm

[Wendy Summers]

Photos that are posted in the public domain (i.e. the internet) can be re-posted without permission for non-commercial use unless the owner of the photo specifically prohibits it.

I'd call your statement there legally iffy.

[nysprod]

I'd call your statement there legally iffy.

It isn't...however, you still have to be careful. For example, if you write a blog about prostitution and you post pics of someone and then claim they are a prostitute when they're not, that's certainly something you can be sued for.

[TSBootyLondon]

Always!

I own the material on London Ladyboys anyway.. and content posted from LadyboyGold, Grooby and HungHelen I have written consent providing that I keep the logo's (fact not BS)

xx X

[alpha2117]

I only ever post 1 or 2 pics in response to queries - like the thread with the Canadian girls causing a disturbance on a plane where I posted a few pics of one of the girls to show why her parading with no top would probably cause more disturbance than most (the demon tattoo with 666's and the inverted pentagram are not things people react well too). Without knowing specific laws in different countries hat is usually considered fair useage of things that are in the public domain. Posting 100 pics from a set from a pay site would be considered piracy

Vid wise it's only youtube links and that pretty much public domain.

[Remy757Photog]

Photos that are posted in the public domain (i.e. the internet) can be re-posted without permission for non-commercial use unless the owner of the photo specifically prohibits it.

They aren't available to the public, you have to be a 'friend' or 'friend of friend' to see the images in many instances. That infers some level of privacy.

As I stated in the other thread, you guys hide behind avatars and wouldn't want your own or friends/family pics posted here on a porn forum. These girls deserve the same level of respect. The problem is, that you guys don't think that trans women deserve the same level of respect that you do.

[nysprod]

They aren't available to the public, you have to be a 'friend' or 'friend of friend' to see the images in many instances. That infers some level of privacy.



I was referring to pics that are available to the public.

[Remy757Photog]

I was referring to pics that are available to the public.

Fair enough. So you do object to personal private images that you couldn't find just with a simple google search to be posted here?

[dderek123]

Fair enough. So you do object to personal private images that you couldn't find just with a simple google search to be posted here?

I would object to it, it's just not right. Maybe they could sensor their faces like they do for the guys in the party photos.

The internet is a shitty place sometimes. I rarely post personal images to my FB for that reason. You gotta be careful about that if you don't want others to see something you don't want them to.

[Remy757Photog]

I would object to it, it's just not right. Maybe they could sensor their faces like they do for the guys in the party photos.

The internet is a shitty place sometimes. I rarely post personal images to my FB for that reason. You gotta be careful about that if you don't want others to see something you don't want them to.

True, I've already informed one of the girls that missyplay put on blast here, and she is screen capping every single guy on her FB friend list to put up on here and not just pics of the guy themselves, personal moments with friends/family too provided these threads aren't taken down. I will help raise all the ruckus that can be raised over this matter, it's beyond offensive.

[nysprod]

Fair enough. So you do object to personal private images that you couldn't find just with a simple google search to be posted here?

I don't post them...I don't have any to post anyway...I guess if you find some you should contact a mod.

[Remy757Photog]

I don't post them...I don't have any to post anyway...I guess if you find some you should contact a mod.

I absolutely already have, and I don't expect much of a response since you guys want the photos here and that's all that seems to matter. I know you aren't posting them, it's this missyplay person who is trying to get support so she doesn't feel bad for violating peoples privacy. It says a lot that only two of the girls on this forum have even bothered to say anything about this matter. #lackoftogetherness

[nysprod]

I absolutely already have, and I don't expect much of a response since you guys want the photos here and that's all that seems to matter. I know you aren't posting them, it's this missyplay person who is trying to get support so she doesn't feel bad for violating peoples privacy. It says a lot that only two of the girls on this forum have even bothered to say anything about this matter. #lackoftogetherness

Do a google search of a couple of pics she's posted just to see where and how often they appear...I don't have any of them or I'd do it myself.

Just curious to see how many sites they're already posted on, if any.

[Johnny.Blaze]

The way I see it is like this. Most of the photos that are posted have the websites watermark or address in the photo. So what people are actually doing is giving these sites free publicity. I mean look at it this way. There is a girl's photo posted. On the photo, it says shemaleyum.com or some other site. Well now you know to go to shemaleyum if you wanna see that whole set and video. Free publicity never hurts as far as I'm concerned.

[Remy757Photog]

Do a google search of a couple of pics she's posted just to see where and how often they appear...I don't have any of them or I'd do it myself.

Just curious to see how many sites they're already posted on, if any.

Just did two different searches with girls that have refused to do porn and would not approve of their images being here. The google images search brought up no images of them.

[Remy757Photog]

The way I see it is like this. Most of the photos that are posted have the websites watermark or address in the photo. So what people are actually doing is giving these sites free publicity. I mean look at it this way. There is a girl's photo posted. On the photo, it says shemaleyum.com or some other site. Well now you know to go to shemaleyum if you wanna see that whole set and video. Free publicity never hurts as far as I'm concerned.

This thread is mostly concerning missyplay use of Facebook private photos. This is a porn forum, so porn images usually goes without saying will be posted here, commercial works aren't the issue at hand so much as people private lives that missplay feels should be posted here.

[Johnny.Blaze]

You def shouldn't post pictures of anyone that actually doesn't want their photos viewed. Like say girls on facebook or myspace. Private photos should never be shared unless permission is given. But paysites I feel we actually help promote by posting (Some) photos. Whole sets are a no no, I feel....

[nysprod]

Just did two different searches with girls that have refused to do porn and would not approve of their images being here. The google images search brought up no images of them.

Really...that's a banning offense then, IMO.

[Johnny.Blaze]

So what about photos from non paysites, like tumblr? I see people posting Trap pictures all over the place in this forum. Ones that have no name, just a photo and no info. Would you call that wrong???

[Johnny.Blaze]

And while we are at it. We're talking about people sharing photos of girls on facebook and myspace, while all the while there is a thread solely called "facebook girls" that many post and comment in. Thread has over 400,000 views. Why is that thread allowed to stay active?

[nysprod]

So what about photos from non paysites, like tumblr? I see people posting Trap pictures all over the place in this forum. Ones that have no name, just a photo and no info. Would you call that wrong???

Finding pics on a tumblr and posting them isn't a prob, because they're already in the public domain, they're not copyrighted, and there's no disclaimer about re-posting them...actually, many tumblrs have a disclaimer about the pics being found in the public domain and that they'll be removed upon request. And if someone posts their own pics on their tumblr, and there's no prohibition about re-posting them, they certainly can be re-posted on non-commercial sites.

[dderek123]

So what about photos from non paysites, like tumblr? I see people posting Trap pictures all over the place in this forum. Ones that have no name, just a photo and no info. Would you call that wrong???

Yeah I would if the images were of women who wouldn't want their photo on tumblr. There are a lot of cases where the lady wants their vids and photos to be shared though. Like some of the girls in the Trap ID thread.

If I were in their shoes I just wouldn't upload anything that I wouldn't want to be seen. So it can get complicated. It's best that people protect themselves from this sort of thing because once something is uploaded there's no reversing it.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23661767.jpg

[dderek123]

And while we are at it. We're talking about people sharing photos of girls on facebook and myspace, while all the while there is a thread solely called "facebook girls" that many post and comment in. Thread has over 400,000 views. Why is that thread allowed to stay active?

Good question.

[Rabbiteyes]

Finding pics on a tumblr and posting them isn't a prob, because they're already in the public domain, they're not copyrighted, and there's no disclaimer about re-posting them...actually, many tumblrs have a disclaimer about the pics being found in the public domain and that they'll be removed upon request. And if someone posts their own pics on their tumblr, and there's no prohibition about re-posting them, they certainly can be re-posted on non-commercial sites.

Actually...a copyright is granted automatically when you create anything. You don't have to do anything to have a right to the work you create (you don't need to sign it, watermark it, put disclaimers on it, or anything else).

The thing is, there are also fair use laws (such as using an image for a few seconds in a long video...or using a piece of an image in a matte painting). These laws are extremely vague ... so, make things a bit confusing sometimes.

Is posting a picture you didn't create on a forum a violation of copyright? Probably not. It probably falls under fair use (as you aren't trying to profit or anything else). On the other hand, a company (such as the owner of the website) using the images to promote their website (where they are generating revenues from ads or anything else) would be more of an issue.

But really, it is the internet. Never post a picture if you can't handle losing control of it.

[LilyRox]

Unfortunately when you sign up for Facebook you agree to the terms and conditions that anything you post you allow anyone else access to use.

This is why I don't have a Facebook.

[Johnny.Blaze]

[QUOTE=dderek123;1368774]Yeah I would if the images were of women who wouldn't want their photo on tumblr. There are a lot of cases where the lady wants their vids and photos to be shared though. Like some of the girls in the Trap ID thread.

If I were in their shoes I just wouldn't upload anything that I wouldn't want to be seen. So it can get complicated. It's best that people protect themselves from this sort of thing because once something is uploaded there's no reversing it.

I get your point with the Trap ID thread. I've posted girls in that thread. These are girls that either have a presence on social sites, or xhamster or thier own site. I'm mainly talking about that trap thread where people just post pics of any trap and not give any info on them. But then again, these girls are posting their asses in public forums and such, so what the hell. But posting facebook girls. I really think that's a no no.

[Johnny.Blaze]

Unfortunately when you sign up for Facebook you agree to the terms and conditions that anything you post you allow anyone else access to use.

This is why I don't have a Facebook.

How many of us actually read that long ass thing - lol:crazy

[dderek123]

But posting facebook girls. I really think that's a no no.

:iagree:

[LilyRox]

How many of us actually read that long ass thing - lol:crazy

South park Apple agreement - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wozm6IIIDVU)

[nysprod]

It's like going to s sporting event and your image shows up in a picture of the action on field...you can't sue because your image is there...there's no damage to sue for anyway.

That's why Anthony Weiner can't sue the website that posted the nude pics he sent that woman...it's his image but the pics were in the possession of the woman who gave it to the website, i.e. she owned the photo.

[nysprod]

But posting facebook girls. I really think that's a no no.




If the pics are public, it's a yes-yes.

[scroller]

Finding pics on a tumblr and posting them isn't a prob, because they're already in the public domain, they're not copyrighted, and there's no disclaimer about re-posting them...actually, many tumblrs have a disclaimer about the pics being found in the public domain and that they'll be removed upon request. And if someone posts their own pics on their tumblr, and there's no prohibition about re-posting them, they certainly can be re-posted on non-commercial sites.

Like, all of this is false.

[nysprod]

Like, all of this is false.

Why is that?

[TempestTS]

I'd call your statement there legally iffy.

Wendy you are always such a soft touch sweetie... "Leagally Iffy" LOL

Id say his Statement is lacking any form of legal foundation and is intrinsically fucked. (not to be confused with Wendy who is just Intrinsically fuckable)

Simply posting on the internet is not public domain nor does it relinquish the owners copyright standing. Now there are some sites that have specific terms in what it might mean to a right holder should they publish their images on said site but as a whole the internet is not one big public domain and someone cant simply take images or videos that appear and automatically assume that someone can re-post or use them in any way you see fit if copyright exists (and by default statutory copyright belongs to the image creator unless granted to another party)

Uggg...

if someone needs more information about copyright and legal standing in the internet age see the following for the basics and a primer on how it is interpreted.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

http://webdesign.about.com/od/copyright/Copyright_Issues_on_the_Web_Intellectual_Property. htm

[Remy757Photog]

So what about photos from non paysites, like tumblr? I see people posting Trap pictures all over the place in this forum. Ones that have no name, just a photo and no info. Would you call that wrong???

I don't use tumblr so I'm not sure how it works. Are all photos posted there available to public by default?


And while we are at it. We're talking about people sharing photos of girls on facebook and myspace, while all the while there is a thread solely called "facebook girls" that many post and comment in. Thread has over 400,000 views. Why is that thread allowed to stay active?

I don't keep up with this forum so forgive me for not being aware of all the threads that may be similar. However; to be clear, that "facebook girls" thread is the exact thread that prompted this poll in the first place.

[Remy757Photog]

Good question.

lol It's allowed to stay active because the mod are choosing not to care lol. I would never tolerate this shit, I have more respect for trans women than that. I don't know what the response time is concerning matters like this, but I've tried to bring this to their attention with no response whatsoever.

[GroobyKrissy]

This is probably going to turn into a fuck-fest but whatever.

I'm assuming we're talking about non-promotional generated content by porn producers for the purposes of this discussion.

Copyright laws are pretty clear when it comes to images. If you click the camera (or do so on behalf of someone) you immediately "own" the picture, that is, it is automatically copyrighted, as RabbitEyes already stated.

Additionally, an image is considered a work, in and of itself. That is to say, it is not "fair use" to post one image from a gallery of 1,000 pictures. EACH ONE of those pictures is considered a separate "work" and covered individually by copyright law.

Copyright laws give the copyright owner specific rights, including the right to reproduce, recreate, sell, etc. etc. It is a fallacy that copyright rights diminish with the number of times the work is recreated. That is to say, Person A takes a picture and owns the copyright. Person B takes said picture and reproduces it across 50 different websites. Those websites distribute it over 50 more websites, and etc. Person A can still go to the very last website to publish the image and exercise ownership of the image, and choose not to exercise ownership over ANY of the other sites.

In the realm of stolen porn, contrary to popular belief, "Fair Use" does not, in any way, give you the right to reproduce a picture or video in its entirety... for any reason, especially one that is watermarked (which is why people do it - it is not just to tell you where the picture came from). A watermark is a visual way of telling you, the viewer, that this image is owned and is "for sale", that is to say, someone is profiting off of the reproduction / exhibition. That is the real purpose of watermarking an image. It is a side benefit... that it usually tells the viewer where to find an entire "set" or other images. "Public domain" (i.e. - the Internet) LEGALLY has nothing to do with "Fair Use". Just because a picture is on the Internet, it does not mean the copyright owner has waived their rights, regardless of how "far down" the tree the reproduction is found or created.

Generally speaking, Fair Use allows you to recreate or use a portion of a work for the purposes of comment, review, parody, and etc. What people (especially in the world of stolen porn) often choose NOT to understand is that this use MUST NOT infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exercise their exclusive rights, which includes profiting off of their works. That is breaking copyright law and may not fall into the category of "Fair Use" in a court of law.

This is where posting porn you don't own is, in fact, an infringement... you are giving something away for free that you don't own and are infringing on the owner's ability to profit off of their work. Porn is largely a VISUAL medium. The owner can probably, successfully argue that ANY unauthorized reproduction of a work infringes on their ability to profit off of the work by giving something away for free that they NORMALLY (proven history) charge people for, thus diminishing its value.

Obviously, in this day and age, most porn site owners understand that there is a certain amount of PR that happens among pirated content and overlook it on forums such as this. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is still, LEGALLY, an infringement of a copyright owner's rights in the end.

[Johnny.Blaze]

Hell I made this drum set designed to look like Eddie Van Halens
Frankenstrat guitar. Put it up on Ebay to sell and in like one day, got a letter saying I needed to take the add down. And I made it with my own hands. I'm not sure if it was because it was designed after Eddies guitar or what. But Copyright does seem to go overboard at times.

[GroobyKrissy]

Tempest... you beat me to it!

[GroobyKrissy]

Hell I made this drum set designed to look like Eddie Van Halens
Frankenstrat guitar. Put it up on Ebay to sell and in like one day, got a letter saying I needed to take the add down. And I made it with my own hands. I'm not sure if it was because it was designed after Eddies guitar or what. But Copyright does seem to go overboard at times.

What did you put in the writing?

[Johnny.Blaze]

What did you put in the writing?

I believe I put Custom EVH Frankenstrat look design drum set. Which I know saying EVH Frankenstrat was my downfall. But without saying that, know one would have known what I was talking about. It's not like you can say, Black,white, and red striped drum set and get any hits...

[TempestTS]

Hell I made this drum set designed to look like Eddie Van Halens
Frankenstrat guitar. Put it up on Ebay to sell and in like one day, got a letter saying I needed to take the add down. And I made it with my own hands. I'm not sure if it was because it was designed after Eddies guitar or what. But Copyright does seem to go overboard at times.

As Krissy pointed out wording in a sales pitch counts.

In regards to the drum set - NICE

In regards to the design - If Im not mistaken not only is the design of the guitar copyrighted (to the designing artist and since bought up by Eddie) but the exact pattern (or near representation there of) has been trademarked as well so there are a several issues that could be causing you problems there (and for all I know Eddie licensed the design to a drum maker in the past for some VH series blah blah blah so it might be a fairly tightly controlled design)

I remember some guitar maker having a similar design and being forced to change the name to something like "Eruption Paint Splash" which of course evokes the concept being aimed a bit at VH without actually saying so.

[GroobyKrissy]

As Krissy pointed out wording in a sales pitch counts.

In regards to the drum set - NICE

In regards to the design - If Im not mistaken not only is the design of the guitar copyrighted (to the designing artist and since bought up by Eddie) but the exact pattern (or near representation there of) has been trademarked as well so there are a several issues that could be causing you problems there (and for all I know Eddie licensed the design to a drum maker in the past for some VH series blah blah blah so it might be a fairly tightly controlled design)

I remember some guitar maker having a similar design and being forced to change the name to something like "Eruption Paint Splash" which of course evokes the concept being aimed a bit at VH without actually saying so.

Tempest once again beats me. Now if she would only do that in real life.

[Johnny.Blaze]

As Krissy pointed out wording in a sales pitch counts.

In regards to the drum set - NICE

In regards to the design - If Im not mistaken not only is the design of the guitar copyrighted (to the designing artist and since bought up by Eddie) but the exact pattern (or near representation there of) has been trademarked as well so there are a several issues that could be causing you problems there (and for all I know Eddie licensed the design to a drum maker in the past for some VH series blah blah blah so it might be a fairly tightly controlled design)

I remember some guitar maker having a similar design and being forced to change the name to something like "Eruption Paint Splash" which of course evokes the concept being aimed a bit at VH without actually saying so.

Its just a little overboard in my opinion. I made only one, wasn't trying to make a business out of it. Was just a hobby project at first. But what was funny, was I built a Superman logo style snare drum and a Cadillac logo style snare, put them up for sale and had no issues at all. And they are more iconic than that guitar. Oh well, what can ya do...:shrug

[GroobyKrissy]

Its just a little overboard in my opinion. I made only one, wasn't trying to make a business out of it. Was just a hobby project at first. But what was funny, was I built a Superman logo style snare drum and a Cadillac logo style snare, put them up for sale and had no issues at all. And they are more iconic than that guitar. Oh well, what can ya do...:shrug

Looks like really nice work, BTW.

The difference is probably this:

The Superman logo, while being trademarked and copyrighted, is only a portion of the end work... same with the Cadillac logo. The work is a drum, not a Superman figure or a Cadillac car.

I'm not familiar with the original, but a reproduction of a drum set along with the words in the writing probably was enough to send some Fan running to EVH and asking if it was "legit", which probably put you on the lawyer's radar.

Believe me, if you had built a Superman figure and included the logo or built a car and included the Cadillac logo... you would have heard about it.

I think even in your cases, you could probably be successfully sued by both DC (if they own the logo) and Cadillac, since you are using their logos to actually sell a product... but probably just so much under the radar since it is a small, insignificant (in their eyes - I love the work) infraction that doesn't impact their bottom line at all.

[missyplay]

Healthy discussion guys :)

So if i had renamed my thread most of u wouldn't have had a problem right?? I love facebook for its blatant voyeurism and exhibitionism

Despite what Remy said i'm not looking for support for anything. Most of the pics i post aren't pornographic nor do they depict anyone in any negative light. In addition, the thread can easily continue just by using pics without befriending anyone.

There are many other popular threads here with similar content. I just opened up mine for discussion. Thanks


Don't be afraid to vote now!

[dderek123]

I still think that it isn't right. But in this day and age those girls should protect themselves better if they don't want their pictures blasted all over porno sites. Nevermind the copyright yadda yadda stuff.

[missyplay]

Let's be honest now. Put your vote. Muah!!